5 ms·

When does this type of censorship (yes, that's what it is, though maybe a positive kind) run into the first amendment? If I make a deep fake of Trump making lov

When does this type of censorship (yes, that's what it is, though maybe a positive kind) run into the first amendment? If I make a deep fake of Trump making love to Lindsay Graham, when does it become protected speech? Do I need a storyline? Does there need to be a moral bent? Does Trump need to say something about Graham "crossing his border?"

kylebenzle 2y ago
It seems this only applies to "women's bodies" so your fine making Trump porn all day.
- vundercind 2y ago
  Where’d you read that in the law?
  - cooperadymas 2y ago
    Whether or not it also applies to men, it was written with women in mind. "when you are able to actively subjugate all women in society on a scale of millions, at once digitally, it’s a direct connection [with] taking their rights away" "Current laws don’t apply to deepfakes, leaving women and girls who suffer from this image-based sexual abuse without a legal remedy" "The legislation would amend the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) "
kolanos 2y ago
By my estimation this runs head first into the first amendment and likely does not survive. It also likely violates the equal protections clause as it is only granting "identifiable individuals" (which does not appear to be defined?) special rights. There is a mountain of case law that states that public figures have limited protections from criticism, mockery, etc. I am not sure humiliation will hold up any better. They likely knew this as they add this at the end: > If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such a provision or amendment to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions of and amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provision or amendment held to be unconstitutional to any other person or circumstance, shall not be affected thereby. Also this definition is still quite broad? > “(3) DIGITAL FORGERY.—The term ‘digital forgery’ means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, to appear to a reasonable person to be indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual, regardless of whether the visual depiction indicates, through a label or some other form of information published with the visual depiction, that the visual depiction is not authentic.”; So it doesn't even need to be pornographic, just "intimate".
InitialLastName 2y ago
Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that (broadly speaking) fraud and other malicious deception are not considered to be protected by the first amendment. There are some complications re. your example in that political speech has more protections. https://www.freedomforum.org/is-lying-protected-first-amendment/ https://www.freedomforum.org/is-lying-protected-first-amendm...

kylebenzle 2y ago

It seems this only applies to "women's bodies" so your fine making Trump porn all day.

vundercind 2y ago
Where’d you read that in the law?
- cooperadymas 2y ago
  Whether or not it also applies to men, it was written with women in mind. "when you are able to actively subjugate all women in society on a scale of millions, at once digitally, it’s a direct connection [with] taking their rights away" "Current laws don’t apply to deepfakes, leaving women and girls who suffer from this image-based sexual abuse without a legal remedy" "The legislation would amend the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) "

kolanos 2y ago

By my estimation this runs head first into the first amendment and likely does not survive. It also likely violates the equal protections clause as it is only granting "identifiable individuals" (which does not appear to be defined?) special rights. There is a mountain of case law that states that public figures have limited protections from criticism, mockery, etc. I am not sure humiliation will hold up any better. They likely knew this as they add this at the end: > If any provision of this Act, an amendment made by this Act, or the application of such a provision or amendment to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions of and amendments made by this Act, and the application of the provision or amendment held to be unconstitutional to any other person or circumstance, shall not be affected thereby. Also this definition is still quite broad? > “(3) DIGITAL FORGERY.—The term ‘digital forgery’ means any intimate visual depiction of an identifiable individual created through the use of software, machine learning, artificial intelligence, or any other computer-generated or technological means, including by adapting, modifying, manipulating, or altering an authentic visual depiction, to appear to a reasonable person to be indistinguishable from an authentic visual depiction of the individual, regardless of whether the visual depiction indicates, through a label or some other form of information published with the visual depiction, that the visual depiction is not authentic.”; So it doesn't even need to be pornographic, just "intimate".

InitialLastName 2y ago

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is that (broadly speaking) fraud and other malicious deception are not considered to be protected by the first amendment. There are some complications re. your example in that political speech has more protections. https://www.freedomforum.org/is-lying-protected-first-amendment/ https://www.freedomforum.org/is-lying-protected-first-amendm...